Posted by: Michael (mchosmer@gmail.com) on Wed May 13 11:30:52 2009

> "I think a lot of what is talked about such as the shoulders rotating and a circular hand path is a natural byproduct of a good swing...Both happen naturally and you can't over analyze things and try and work on that in a batting cage."
>
> This is pure nonsense, and smelly to read.
>
> Nothing is a natural byproduct of anything in athletics. Hitting isn't "natural" any more than kicking a football is natural. The use of the word natural is so general as to be meaningless.
>
> Second, you have given us a logical fallacy. If shoulder rotation and circular hand path are good and natural, why would we not want to concentrate on performing those aspects correctly? You yourself said they are part of a good swing.
>
> You say they happen "naturally." What do you mean "naturally?" You must not watch much baseball. At the youth fields in my neighborhood, you can watch games from sunrise until 10 p.m. and not see one kid with a circular hand route and good transfer mechanics. Where are all these natural mechanics?
>
> You sound anti-intellectual. There is a lot of that going around the country right now. You seem to want things simple and bereft of deep analysis. Up to you, but don't expect people who know better to buy your reductionist BS.

Melvin...You are obviously extremely unintelligent so I will try and keep this as simple as possible in an attempt to make you smarter. But I am pretty sure I will fail.

I never said hitting is natural. I said things such as shoulder rotation and circular hand path are natural parts of a GOOD MLB SWING. Notice I am not saying an MLB SWING is natural. There is a BIG difference there genius. Your post makes no sense at all. Read the old threads in this message board and you will see a huge debate with Jack Mankin and a person named Graylon. Jack says you should focus on starting with shoulder rotation and Graylon states you should focus on letting your hands go and the shoulders will rotate naturally in order to let your hands take the barrel to the ball.

You state, "Second, you have given us a logical fallacy. If shoulder rotation and circular hand path are good and natural, why would we not want to concentrate on performing those aspects correctly? You yourself said they are part of a good swing."

Since I feel this is already getting way too complicated for your mind to comprehend I will leave you with this to try and think about in regards to your last statement above.

Do you REALLY think major league players who have a game tonight are going into batting practice thinking, "Ok I need to work on my shoulder rotation and make sure I have a good circular hand path"... do you really believe that? Do you really think they worked on those things in the minor leagues?

I would be willing to bet what's left in your little piggy bank that they don't work on those things.

Man I feel like this got way too complicated for you, I can only hope you understand this. But the odds are stacked way against me given your intelligence level.

http://blog.swingtraining.net/page/2.aspx

Scroll down to, "Arod: Creating a compact swing". Do you hear Arod talking about how he tries to focus on a good shoulder rotation and circular hand path?